Total Posts:317|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

New Testament

stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 10:05:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Whats up everybody.

If you have read my bio or talked to me, you know I'm a bible and theology major. I think I want to specialize in studies of the new testament. Last year was my freshman year and I wrote a 14 page research paper simply on the historical reliability of the gospels. So I know some about the topic, but I would never claim to be an expert or anything on the subject. I just want to know some questions skeptics have about either the reliability of the gospels, Jesus, the resurrection, and other things like that. I want to do this to test my knowledge, maybe provide some answers, and I'm hoping I myself learn some new things. I have no idea if anyone will even post in here, but I'll try to get to all of them. It may take a little bit if I have to go to the library to do some research so I can give the answers to the best of my ability.

Thanks
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 10:24:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 10:05:51 AM, stubs wrote:
Whats up everybody.

If you have read my bio or talked to me, you know I'm a bible and theology major. I think I want to specialize in studies of the new testament. Last year was my freshman year and I wrote a 14 page research paper simply on the historical reliability of the gospels. So I know some about the topic, but I would never claim to be an expert or anything on the subject. I just want to know some questions skeptics have about either the reliability of the gospels, Jesus, the resurrection, and other things like that. I want to do this to test my knowledge, maybe provide some answers, and I'm hoping I myself learn some new things. I have no idea if anyone will even post in here, but I'll try to get to all of them. It may take a little bit if I have to go to the library to do some research so I can give the answers to the best of my ability.

Thanks

God bless you Stubs. Your fine example for young Christians. I'll leave you to the answering here as I see thats a obstacle you wish to take on. God Bless.
TheAsylum
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 10:31:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 10:05:51 AM, stubs wrote:
Whats up everybody.

If you have read my bio or talked to me, you know I'm a bible and theology major. I think I want to specialize in studies of the new testament. Last year was my freshman year and I wrote a 14 page research paper simply on the historical reliability of the gospels. So I know some about the topic, but I would never claim to be an expert or anything on the subject. I just want to know some questions skeptics have about either the reliability of the gospels, Jesus, the resurrection, and other things like that. I want to do this to test my knowledge, maybe provide some answers, and I'm hoping I myself learn some new things. I have no idea if anyone will even post in here, but I'll try to get to all of them. It may take a little bit if I have to go to the library to do some research so I can give the answers to the best of my ability.

Thanks

I don't qualify as a skeptic, but I can tell you that an issue that I hear alot in discussions is the fact that the Gospels weren't written for so long after Jesus' death and resurrection.

Is it accurate when they say that there was a significant time gap, and if so, how can we be sure of the reliabilty of the Gospels??
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 10:43:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 10:31:11 AM, medic0506 wrote:
I don't qualify as a skeptic, but I can tell you that an issue that I hear alot in discussions is the fact that the Gospels weren't written for so long after Jesus' death and resurrection.


Good point, I shouldn't have just said skeptics because I think Christians looking critically at there faith is a good thing. There are three "points" on a historical timeline of events. Point A would be: When the event actually took place. Point B is: When the writing was actually written. And Point C would be: The time it is now. The time from A to C is not nearly as relevant as point A to B. So people who say it was written a long time ago, so it cannot be true are looking at the wrong "points." It is generally agreed that Mark is the first gospel. Through my own personal study I would date it in the mid to late 50's. (Reasons for this date will be provided if anyone asks or has a reason for disagreeing.)

Is it accurate when they say that there was a significant time gap, and if so, how can we be sure of the reliabilty of the Gospels??

The time gap may seem big now, but not from a first century Grecco-Roman worldview. Even though Mark was the first gospel written, we must remember, Paul had writings even before Mark which includes the doctrine of the resurrection. It is unlikely that in that time frame a legend of the resurrection could have been thought up and actually thrived in that context. For comparison we can look at the biographies of Alexander the Great. The first two biographies of his life were written 400 years after his death and historians consider them to be generally reliable. After 400 years, yes, legendary material developed, but for the first 400 years the historical information stayed in tact.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 10:44:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 10:24:18 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
God bless you Stubs. Your fine example for young Christians. I'll leave you to the answering here as I see thats a obstacle you wish to take on. God Bless.

Thanks for the support man
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 5:45:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 10:05:51 AM, stubs wrote:
Whats up everybody.

If you have read my bio or talked to me, you know I'm a bible and theology major. I think I want to specialize in studies of the new testament. Last year was my freshman year and I wrote a 14 page research paper simply on the historical reliability of the gospels. So I know some about the topic, but I would never claim to be an expert or anything on the subject. I just want to know some questions skeptics have about either the reliability of the gospels, Jesus, the resurrection, and other things like that. I want to do this to test my knowledge, maybe provide some answers, and I'm hoping I myself learn some new things. I have no idea if anyone will even post in here, but I'll try to get to all of them. It may take a little bit if I have to go to the library to do some research so I can give the answers to the best of my ability.

Thanks

I'll bite.

1. The 4 gospels were written between 65 and 95 AD (http://www.nationalgeographic.com...) well after the death of Christ, how can you be sure that their memories were correct?

2. How can we know that the authors of the New Testament were in fact the apostles of Jesus?

3. Does the New Testament give a reliable history of Jesus's life? (please explain why or why not).

4. Why do you believe the New Testament documents are a reliable source of historical truth? (I know you wrote a paper on this. And on a side note, it'd be interesting to read it.)

5. Were the disciples still misunderstanding Jesus due to hard hearts even after he walked to them on the water on the Sea of Galilee (Mark 6:52) or did they worship him and call him the Son of God (Matt 14:33)?

6. Does the centurion himself come to ask for Jesus to heal his servant (Matt 8:5–9) or does he send his friends (Luke 7:1–8)?

7. Does Jairus come to ask Jesus to heal his daughter while she is still alive only to find out later that she has just died (Mark 5:22–23, 35), or does he come only after her death (Matt 9:18)?

8. Is the gospel of John historically trustworthy? (John contains no parables, no exorcisms, and almost no teaching about the kingdom, and he fails to mention that Jesus was baptized by John or instituted the Lord's Supper during the last meal of his earthly life with his disciples. On the other hand, he contains two chapters about Jesus' ministry before the major period of popularity with the Galilean crowds that dominates the Synoptics (John 2–4). During that period of popularity, he focuses primarily on Jesus' trips to Jerusalem at festival time, which are entirely absent from the Synoptics, and the claims he made for himself and conflicts he precipitated with various Jewish leaders there, along with his most spectacular miracle of all—the resurrection of Lazarus (John 5–11). Throughout his ministry, John's Jesus makes the most explicit references to his own exalted nature, implying his deity, of anywhere in the canonical Gospels.)
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 9:30:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 5:45:30 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
I'll bite.

1. The 4 gospels were written between 65 and 95 AD (http://www.nationalgeographic.com...) well after the death of Christ, how can you be sure that their memories were correct?


I disagree that mark was written as late as 65ad. It doesn't seem to make much sense when we look at the historical narrative of acts and compare it to events going on at the time. From there we back track. I would say Acts was written no later than 62AD because it is most likely that Paul was still alive when the book was finished. And from that we know that Luke was written before that, Matthew before Luke, and Mark before Matthew. I'm not claiming that's a bulletproof theory. I'm claiming it is more plausible than any other explanation.

2. How can we know that the authors of the New Testament were in fact the apostles of Jesus?


"One of the biggest evidences for trusting that the names of the people who are attached to the gospels actually wrote them is there are no competing authors . There is little reason to believe that the early church would have lied and attached these names to the gospels. The early church would have most likely picked four people who were in the twelve disciples, but Mark and Luke were not . Matthew was a former tax collector and would also be unlikely to have been chosen ahead of the other disciples."*

3. Does the New Testament give a reliable history of Jesus's life? (please explain why or why not).


Most plausibly yes. It is the earliest writing on Jesus' life and there would have been eye witnesses around at the time the new testament was written who could have easily shot down any false testimonies. In addition to that there is what is called the criterion of embarrassment that is found much in the gospels. What this idea says is that if the gospels were just made up, there are lots of things the disciples would have left out. There's many examples but I will give two. The first would be the women being the first to discover the empty tomb. In that culture womens testimony were considered unreliable. There would have been no benefit to the disciples in claiming that the women discovered the empty tomb first. In fact, it was probably a hindrance to them. Another one would be Peter denying Jesus 3 times. Not only that, but remember who got Peter to deny Jesus? It was not a roman soldier, it was a little servant girl. How would making that up be of any value to people just trying to start a religion about an ordinary man they claimed to be God?

4. Why do you believe the New Testament documents are a reliable source of historical truth? (I know you wrote a paper on this. And on a side note, it'd be interesting to read it.)


That's a very long answer and I'm sorry I wont be able to address it very well here as there are many books written on the subject. One thing that I don't think many people talk about is the fact that people say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." That is incredibly false. If true you could never be rational in believing a report on the morning news that the winning pick in last nights lottery was a certain number because that is an extraordinary improbable event and therefore you should never believe such a report. In establishing the credibility of an event you must consider more than just the inherent probability of the event. You must also consider the probability of the evidence being just as it is if that event had not taken place. Thus, in the example of the lottery number story. What is the probability that the number would be reported as being won if it had not won? If that is low enough it offsets the probability of the initial event. So for me, it is improbable that we would have all this evidence for the resurrection, if it were not true. Now obviously lots of people do not think we have "all this evidence" or else everyone would be Christian. I am just explaining how I see it.

5. Were the disciples still misunderstanding Jesus due to hard hearts even after he walked to them on the water on the Sea of Galilee (Mark 6:52) or did they worship him and call him the Son of God (Matt 14:33)?

6. Does the centurion himself come to ask for Jesus to heal his servant (Matt 8:5–9) or does he send his friends (Luke 7:1–8)?

7. Does Jairus come to ask Jesus to heal his daughter while she is still alive only to find out later that she has just died (Mark 5:22–23, 35), or does he come only after her death (Matt 9:18)?

8. Is the gospel of John historically trustworthy? (John contains no parables, no exorcisms, and almost no teaching about the kingdom, and he fails to mention that Jesus was baptized by John or instituted the Lord's Supper during the last meal of his earthly life with his disciples. On the other hand, he contains two chapters about Jesus' ministry before the major period of popularity with the Galilean crowds that dominates the Synoptics (John 2–4). During that period of popularity, he focuses primarily on Jesus' trips to Jerusalem at festival time, which are entirely absent from the Synoptics, and the claims he made for himself and conflicts he precipitated with various Jewish leaders there, along with his most spectacular miracle of all—the resurrection of Lazarus (John 5–11). Throughout his ministry, John's Jesus makes the most explicit references to his own exalted nature, implying his deity, of anywhere in the canonical Gospels.)

I will openly admit that John is the gospel I know the least historically about. However, it was the last one written and there are obvious claims of deity in the other 3 gospels. So the fact that John has more/more obvious claims does not bother me. Also the fact that he does include or doesnt include things talked about in the other gospels does not make them any more or less true.

As for the alleged contradictions your proposed, I will get to them later if I have time the only problem is that everyone always brings up the same ideas and its boring to just give the same answer every time you know haha. But I have to go to class soon but I will definetly try and get back to you about the other things you posted. I hope that some of the answers I gave were helpful and if you have any other questions just let me know. Thanks for asking.

*Taken from paper. Sources provided upon request.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 3:56:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 9:30:07 AM, stubs wrote:
At 8/27/2012 5:45:30 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
I'll bite.

1. The 4 gospels were written between 65 and 95 AD (http://www.nationalgeographic.com...) well after the death of Christ, how can you be sure that their memories were correct?


I disagree that mark was written as late as 65ad. It doesn't seem to make much sense when we look at the historical narrative of acts and compare it to events going on at the time. From there we back track. I would say Acts was written no later than 62AD because it is most likely that Paul was still alive when the book was finished. And from that we know that Luke was written before that, Matthew before Luke, and Mark before Matthew. I'm not claiming that's a bulletproof theory. I'm claiming it is more plausible than any other explanation.

Many biblical scholars believe Matthew was written between 62 and 69 AD. Luke was written between 64 and 68 AD. Mark between 59 and 64 AD. Acts between 66 and 68 AD. And finally, John between 83 and 89 AD. (http://www.errantskeptics.org...) So basing it off of expert testimony, the 4 gospels were written between 59 and 89 AD. Once again, how can we be sure their memories were correct? They were fallible men who wrote the gospels.


2. How can we know that the authors of the New Testament were in fact the apostles of Jesus?


"One of the biggest evidences for trusting that the names of the people who are attached to the gospels...but Mark and Luke were not . Matthew was a former tax collector and would also be unlikely to have been chosen ahead of the other disciples."*

hmmm...interesting. So why didn't they pick 4 people who were actually disciples?

So why not some of the Gnostic Gospels? The Gospel of Thomas for example? Or the Gospel of Judas? Or the Gospel of Mary? Why are the gnostic gospels not considered scriptural? Many of the Ghostic Gospels were composed by people who were very close to Jesus. "Jesus loved her more than he loved all of the other apostles." (http://en.wikipedia.org...).


3. Does the New Testament give a reliable history of Jesus's life? (please explain why or why not).


Most plausibly yes. It is the earliest writing on Jesus' life and there would have been eye witnesses around at the time the new testament was written who could have easily shot down any false testimonies.

If I recall correctly, the false testimony is what condemned Jesus to die. But, I get your point.

...criterion of embarrassment that is found much in the gospels....

Keep in mind that Jesus saw this as a big no-no, and many people obviously agreed with Jesus. Otherwise, why would the Sanhista's be so afraid of him? And why would the Roman Empire be so afraid of Jesus? Because he was taking their power and changing society. It was not a hindrance, I mean look at how fast Christianity spread.

Another one would be Peter denying Jesus 3 times. Not only that, but remember who got Peter to deny Jesus?

No one got Peter to do anything, he did it out of his own free will.

How would making that up be of any value to people just trying to start a religion about an ordinary man they claimed to be God?

Because it shows that even the weakest and least powerful can have power in some way. It would help the early Church by showing how your faith can be rattled anywhere by anyone.


4. Why do you believe the New Testament documents are a reliable source of historical truth? (I know you wrote a paper on this. And on a side note, it'd be interesting to read it.)


That's a very long answer and I'm sorry I wont be able to address it very well here as there are many books written on the subject.

Haha don't I know :P

One thing that I don't think many people talk about is the fact that people say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." That is incredibly false.

You should take things on a case by case basis.

If true you could never be rational in believing a report on the morning news that the winning pick in last nights lottery was a certain number because that is an extraordinary improbable event and therefore you should never believe such a report.

It may be an extremely improbable event that you won the lottery, but if the numbers have already been chosen, then the event is set. You can't change it. In the bible's case, the supposed events happened thousands of years ago, and much of the evidence (if it existed) was destroyed during Medieval times into the 19th and 20th centuries.

In establishing the credibility of an event you must consider more than just the inherent probability of the event. You must also consider the probability of the evidence being just as it is if that event had not taken place. Thus, in the example of the lottery number story. What is the probability that the number would be reported as being won if it had not won?

0. Because the event did occur. Maybe if you were asking about the lottery numbers from before the clashes in medieval times, etc.

If that is low enough it offsets the probability of the initial event. So for me, it is improbable that we would have all this evidence for the resurrection, if it were not true.

Bingo. Present the evidence.

Now obviously lots of people do not think we have "all this evidence" or else everyone would be Christian. I am just explaining how I see it.


5. Were the disciples still misunderstanding Jesus due to hard hearts even after he walked to them on the water on the Sea of Galilee (Mark 6:52) or did they worship him and call him the Son of God (Matt 14:33)?

6. Does the centurion himself come to ask for Jesus to heal his servant (Matt 8:5–9) or does he send his friends (Luke 7:1–8)?

7. Does Jairus come to ask Jesus to heal his daughter while she is still alive only to find out later that she has just died (Mark 5:22–23, 35), or does he come only after her death (Matt 9:18)?

8. Is the gospel of John historically trustworthy?

I will openly admit that John is the gospel I know the least historically about. However, it was the last one written and there are obvious claims of deity in the other 3 gospels. So the fact that John has more/more obvious claims does not bother me. Also the fact that he does include or doesnt include things talked about in the other gospels does not make them any more or less true.

The fact is because it contains more detail then the rest and more claims, etc. and it was written last, this casts a doubt in its credibility simply because John was a fallible man (who I believe was slowly growing insane, see the Book of Revelations for more details) and one does not remember that much detail after such a long period of time. It makes it much more unlikely to be historical truth.


As for the alleged contradictions your proposed, I will get to them later if I have time the only problem is that everyone always brings up the same ideas and its boring to just give the same answer every time you know haha.

Ehh...it just wouldn't be the same without those biblical contradiction claims. xD

Oh yea, and one more question, how can you be certain that the bible you hold now is in fact the bible? It has been translated and re-written so many times that for all we know, the Muslims are correct in saying that the Bible has been corrupted throughout the ages. (Despite what many think, Islam and Christianity both believe that the Bible is great book (for lack of better words), and Muslims hold Jesus in great esteem. They just believe the Bible has been corrupted over many years. Just some tidbits of information haha)
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 4:04:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 5:45:30 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/27/2012 10:05:51 AM, stubs wrote:
Whats up everybody.

If you have read my bio or talked to me, you know I'm a bible and theology major. I think I want to specialize in studies of the new testament. Last year was my freshman year and I wrote a 14 page research paper simply on the historical reliability of the gospels. So I know some about the topic, but I would never claim to be an expert or anything on the subject. I just want to know some questions skeptics have about either the reliability of the gospels, Jesus, the resurrection, and other things like that. I want to do this to test my knowledge, maybe provide some answers, and I'm hoping I myself learn some new things. I have no idea if anyone will even post in here, but I'll try to get to all of them. It may take a little bit if I have to go to the library to do some research so I can give the answers to the best of my ability.

Thanks

I'll bite.

1. The 4 gospels were written between 65 and 95 AD (http://www.nationalgeographic.com...) well after the death of Christ, how can you be sure that their memories were correct?

2. How can we know that the authors of the New Testament were in fact the apostles of Jesus?

3. Does the New Testament give a reliable history of Jesus's life? (please explain why or why not).

4. Why do you believe the New Testament documents are a reliable source of historical truth? (I know you wrote a paper on this. And on a side note, it'd be interesting to read it.)

5. Were the disciples still misunderstanding Jesus due to hard hearts even after he walked to them on the water on the Sea of Galilee (Mark 6:52) or did they worship him and call him the Son of God (Matt 14:33)?

6. Does the centurion himself come to ask for Jesus to heal his servant (Matt 8:5–9) or does he send his friends (Luke 7:1–8)?

7. Does Jairus come to ask Jesus to heal his daughter while she is still alive only to find out later that she has just died (Mark 5:22–23, 35), or does he come only after her death (Matt 9:18)?

8. Is the gospel of John historically trustworthy? (John contains no parables, no exorcisms, and almost no teaching about the kingdom, and he fails to mention that Jesus was baptized by John or instituted the Lord's Supper during the last meal of his earthly life with his disciples. On the other hand, he contains two chapters about Jesus' ministry before the major period of popularity with the Galilean crowds that dominates the Synoptics (John 2–4). During that period of popularity, he focuses primarily on Jesus' trips to Jerusalem at festival time, which are entirely absent from the Synoptics, and the claims he made for himself and conflicts he precipitated with various Jewish leaders there, along with his most spectacular miracle of all—the resurrection of Lazarus (John 5–11). Throughout his ministry, John's Jesus makes the most explicit references to his own exalted nature, implying his deity, of anywhere in the canonical Gospels.)

Geeze Bomb, he just wanted to brush up a bit. The poor guy ought to get free credit hours after answering this post...lol
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 4:17:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 4:04:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/27/2012 5:45:30 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 8/27/2012 10:05:51 AM, stubs wrote:
Whats up everybody.

If you have read my bio or talked to me, you know I'm a bible and theology major. I think I want to specialize in studies of the new testament. Last year was my freshman year and I wrote a 14 page research paper simply on the historical reliability of the gospels. So I know some about the topic, but I would never claim to be an expert or anything on the subject. I just want to know some questions skeptics have about either the reliability of the gospels, Jesus, the resurrection, and other things like that. I want to do this to test my knowledge, maybe provide some answers, and I'm hoping I myself learn some new things. I have no idea if anyone will even post in here, but I'll try to get to all of them. It may take a little bit if I have to go to the library to do some research so I can give the answers to the best of my ability.

Thanks

I'll bite.

1. The 4 gospels were written between 65 and 95 AD (http://www.nationalgeographic.com...) well after the death of Christ, how can you be sure that their memories were correct?

2. How can we know that the authors of the New Testament were in fact the apostles of Jesus?

3. Does the New Testament give a reliable history of Jesus's life? (please explain why or why not).

4. Why do you believe the New Testament documents are a reliable source of historical truth? (I know you wrote a paper on this. And on a side note, it'd be interesting to read it.)

5. Were the disciples still misunderstanding Jesus due to hard hearts even after he walked to them on the water on the Sea of Galilee (Mark 6:52) or did they worship him and call him the Son of God (Matt 14:33)?

6. Does the centurion himself come to ask for Jesus to heal his servant (Matt 8:5–9) or does he send his friends (Luke 7:1–8)?

7. Does Jairus come to ask Jesus to heal his daughter while she is still alive only to find out later that she has just died (Mark 5:22–23, 35), or does he come only after her death (Matt 9:18)?

8. Is the gospel of John historically trustworthy? (John contains no parables, no exorcisms, and almost no teaching about the kingdom, and he fails to mention that Jesus was baptized by John or instituted the Lord's Supper during the last meal of his earthly life with his disciples. On the other hand, he contains two chapters about Jesus' ministry before the major period of popularity with the Galilean crowds that dominates the Synoptics (John 2–4). During that period of popularity, he focuses primarily on Jesus' trips to Jerusalem at festival time, which are entirely absent from the Synoptics, and the claims he made for himself and conflicts he precipitated with various Jewish leaders there, along with his most spectacular miracle of all—the resurrection of Lazarus (John 5–11). Throughout his ministry, John's Jesus makes the most explicit references to his own exalted nature, implying his deity, of anywhere in the canonical Gospels.)

Geeze Bomb, he just wanted to brush up a bit. The poor guy ought to get free credit hours after answering this post...lol

Yep xD well...you see if you give me an open question forum, questions are going to fly :D
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 6:15:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 3:56:49 PM, THEBOMB wrote:

Many biblical scholars believe Matthew was written between 62 and 69 AD. Luke was written between 64 and 68 AD. Mark between 59 and 64 AD. Acts between 66 and 68 AD. And finally, John between 83 and 89 AD. (http://www.errantskeptics.org...) So basing it off of expert testimony, the 4 gospels were written between 59 and 89 AD. Once again, how can we be sure their memories were correct? They were fallible men who wrote the gospels.


Appeal to authority. I gave reasons for thinking otherwise. Can you show it is faulty reasoning. The question of how could their memories be correct is basically the same as are the gospels accurate. (Thats atleast how I see it. If you see it as two totally different questions then I will try to address it. But the question of are they accurate is too broad.)

hmmm...interesting. So why didn't they pick 4 people who were actually disciples?


Maybe because the names attached to the gospels are actually who wrote them haha, that's what I think the evidence points to.

So why not some of the Gnostic Gospels? The Gospel of Thomas for example? Or the Gospel of Judas? Or the Gospel of Mary? Why are the gnostic gospels not considered scriptural? Many of the Ghostic Gospels were composed by people who were very close to Jesus. "Jesus loved her more than he loved all of the other apostles." (http://en.wikipedia.org...).


I would say generally it is later dating.

...criterion of embarrassment that is found much in the gospels....

Keep in mind that Jesus saw this as a big no-no, and many people obviously agreed with Jesus. Otherwise, why would the Sanhista's be so afraid of him? And why would the Roman Empire be so afraid of Jesus? Because he was taking their power and changing society. It was not a hindrance, I mean look at how fast Christianity spread.


Well look what happened when Jesus spoke. He would start out with hundreds, sometimes thousands of people listening, and by the time he was done speaking there would only be a few people left. When we look at his teachings we see the more he talked the more people left.

Another one would be Peter denying Jesus 3 times. Not only that, but remember who got Peter to deny Jesus?

No one got Peter to do anything, he did it out of his own free will.

Haha yeah I agree with that, but who pushed him into doing what he did. Not someone with a lot of power or force. But a little girl. (literally) haha

Because it shows that even the weakest and least powerful can have power in some way. It would help the early Church by showing how your faith can be rattled anywhere by anyone.


Good theory but it makes the disciples look bad who would be the ones writing it and it does not really seem to fit the context of the story.

It may be an extremely improbable event that you won the lottery, but if the numbers have already been chosen, then the event is set. You can't change it. In the bible's case, the supposed events happened thousands of years ago, and much of the evidence (if it existed) was destroyed during Medieval times into the 19th and 20th centuries.


As I talked about earlier you are looking at point A to C. Not A to B

Oh yea, and one more question, how can you be certain that the bible you hold now is in fact the bible? It has been translated and re-written so many times that for all we know, the Muslims are correct in saying that the Bible has been corrupted throughout the ages. (Despite what many think, Islam and Christianity both believe that the Bible is great book (for lack of better words), and Muslims hold Jesus in great esteem. They just believe the Bible has been corrupted over many years. Just some tidbits of information haha)

Out of the earliest 6000 greek handwritten manuscripts that we have they are 99.5% consistent. I prefer the ESV version, but I am starting to learn greek so eventually I hope to be able to just read the greek and not any translations.

Sorry I got lazy and didn't explain some more haha
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 6:55:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 6:15:39 PM, stubs wrote:
At 8/28/2012 3:56:49 PM, THEBOMB wrote:

Many biblical scholars believe Matthew was written between 62 and 69 AD. Luke was written between 64 and 68 AD. Mark between 59 and 64 AD. Acts between 66 and 68 AD. And finally, John between 83 and 89 AD. (http://www.errantskeptics.org...) So basing it off of expert testimony, the 4 gospels were written between 59 and 89 AD. Once again, how can we be sure their memories were correct? They were fallible men who wrote the gospels.


Appeal to authority. I gave reasons for thinking otherwise. Can you show it is faulty reasoning.

Much of your reasoning here is not supported well. "when we look at the historical narrative of acts and compare it to events going on at the time. From there we back track. I would say Acts was written no later than 62AD because it is most likely that Paul was still alive when the book was finished." Proof? Paul died in 67 AD btw. Also, why couldn't Luke have been written after Acts? What is your basis for this claim? Acts could have been written first as some argue.

(By the way, my timeline actually supported yours in a way but, I'll question it nevertheless :P)

The question of how could their memories be correct is basically the same as are the gospels accurate.

Say what? Fallible men writing a book? While it is possible that it is correct, the burden still is on you to prove it correct.

(Thats atleast how I see it. If you see it as two totally different questions then I will try to address it. But the question of are they accurate is too broad.)


hmmm...interesting. So why didn't they pick 4 people who were actually disciples?


Maybe because the names attached to the gospels are actually who wrote them haha, that's what I think the evidence points to.

Ermm...Judas wrote the Gospel of Judas...did he not?


So why not some of the Gnostic Gospels? The Gospel of Thomas for example? Or the Gospel of Judas? Or the Gospel of Mary? Why are the gnostic gospels not considered scriptural? Many of the Ghostic Gospels were composed by people who were very close to Jesus. "Jesus loved her more than he loved all of the other apostles." (http://en.wikipedia.org...).


I would say generally it is later dating.

please elaborate if you wish :)


...criterion of embarrassment that is found much in the gospels....

Keep in mind that Jesus saw this as a big no-no, and many people obviously agreed with Jesus. Otherwise, why would the Sandhista's be so afraid of him? And why would the Roman Empire be so afraid of Jesus? Because he was taking their power and changing society. It was not a hindrance, I mean look at how fast Christianity spread.


Well look what happened when Jesus spoke. He would start out with hundreds, sometimes thousands of people listening, and by the time he was done speaking there would only be a few people left. When we look at his teachings we see the more he talked the more people left.

Agreed. But, why would the Sandhista's and the Roman Empire be so afraid of Jesus (and Christianity) if his teachings were not accepted by at least a good number of people? And do not try to argue the Sandhista's and the Roman Empire didn't consider him a threat xD


Another one would be Peter denying Jesus 3 times. Not only that, but remember who got Peter to deny Jesus?

No one got Peter to do anything, he did it out of his own free will.

Haha yeah I agree with that, but who pushed him into doing what he did. Not someone with a lot of power or force. But a little girl. (literally) haha

Well...if someone with a lot of power or force quite literally forced him to deny Jesus it wouldn't make as big of an impact. I basically see it as saying someone's faith can be rattled by the most unlikely source.

I also believe Peter was scared that the little girl would well tell on him xD


Because it shows that even the weakest and least powerful can have power in some way. It would help the early Church by showing how your faith can be rattled anywhere by anyone.


Good theory but it makes the disciples look bad who would be the ones writing it and it does not really seem to fit the context of the story.

So? Quite honestly simply saying you're the best all the time is kinda prideful and seems well...fake.

I also just misworded that...I need to think more sometimes.


It may be an extremely improbable event that you won the lottery, but if the numbers have already been chosen, then the event is set. You can't change it. In the bible's case, the supposed events happened thousands of years ago, and much of the evidence (if it existed) was destroyed during Medieval times into the 19th and 20th centuries.


As I talked about earlier you are looking at point A to C. Not A to B

If I understand what you are saying, you have to place the evidence in a vacuum (so to speak) to determine it's reliability before dismissal? Please correct me if I'm wrong haha



Oh yea, and one more question, how can you be certain that the bible you hold now is in fact the bible? It has been translated and re-written so many times that for all we know, the Muslims are correct in saying that the Bible has been corrupted throughout the ages. (Despite what many think, Islam and Christianity both believe that the Bible is great book (for lack of better words), and Muslims hold Jesus in great esteem. They just believe the Bible has been corrupted over many years. Just some tidbits of information haha)

Out of the earliest 6000 greek handwritten manuscripts that we have they are 99.5% consistent.

Yea...this is true. But, I'm just curious about the .5% ^.^

I prefer the ESV version, but I am starting to learn greek so eventually I hope to be able to just read the greek and not any translations.

Wow...good luck! You're gonna need it haha it's a very, very, very hard language to learn.


Sorry I got lazy and didn't explain some more haha
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 7:18:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That's a very marketable degree ya got there.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 7:37:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

http://www.nobeliefs.com...

2. In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed. As Nicholas Carter concludes in The Christ Myth: "No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity." (Source: http://www.truthbeknown.com...)

3. "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced, than any other book." (Dr. J.J. Griesbach, written in 1771)
Dogknox
Posts: 5,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:25:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 10:05:51 AM, stubs wrote:
Whats up everybody.

If you have read my bio or talked to me, you know I'm a bible and theology major. I think I want to specialize in studies of the new testament. Last year was my freshman year and I wrote a 14 page research paper simply on the historical reliability of the gospels. So I know some about the topic, but I would never claim to be an expert or anything on the subject. I just want to know some questions skeptics have about either the reliability of the gospels, Jesus, the resurrection, and other things like that. I want to do this to test my knowledge, maybe provide some answers, and I'm hoping I myself learn some new things. I have no idea if anyone will even post in here, but I'll try to get to all of them. It may take a little bit if I have to go to the library to do some research so I can give the answers to the best of my ability.

Thanks
stubs Please give me the HISTORY of where the Gospels came from!! They did not fall out of the sky, in a book, with a cover and all the pages numbered!
WHO.... Who made the book and prove these people were guided by the Holy Spirit!

WHO.. Who closed the canon of scriptures telling all the world; "There can't be any more added or removed from the bible"!?

Dogknox
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 4:13:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:25:45 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 8/27/2012 10:05:51 AM, stubs wrote:
Whats up everybody.

If you have read my bio or talked to me, you know I'm a bible and theology major. I think I want to specialize in studies of the new testament. Last year was my freshman year and I wrote a 14 page research paper simply on the historical reliability of the gospels. So I know some about the topic, but I would never claim to be an expert or anything on the subject. I just want to know some questions skeptics have about either the reliability of the gospels, Jesus, the resurrection, and other things like that. I want to do this to test my knowledge, maybe provide some answers, and I'm hoping I myself learn some new things. I have no idea if anyone will even post in here, but I'll try to get to all of them. It may take a little bit if I have to go to the library to do some research so I can give the answers to the best of my ability.

Thanks
stubs Please give me the HISTORY of where the Gospels came from!! They did not fall out of the sky, in a book, with a cover and all the pages numbered!
WHO.... Who made the book and prove these people were guided by the Holy Spirit!

WHO.. Who closed the canon of scriptures telling all the world; "There can't be any more added or removed from the bible"!?

Dogknox

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: Apart from emotional pleadings and your Cults propaganda, first prove there is a Literal Holy-Spirit outside of Story book Land?

Next!
Dogknox
Posts: 5,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 10:15:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Composer You said..
Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: Apart from emotional pleadings and your Cults propaganda, first prove there is a Literal Holy-Spirit outside of Story book Land?

I answer with scriptures...

Matthew 1:18
[ Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son ] This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about : His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

NEXT
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 1:24:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
DogKnox versus Composer: this should be a real battle of wits. Stay tuned.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 1:49:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 1:24:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
DogKnox versus Composer: this should be a real battle of wits. Stay tuned.


Lol! I was just thinking that..

This should be good. ^_^
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 4:12:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
stubs YOU THERE??
Please give me the HISTORY of where the Gospels came from!! They did not fall out of the sky, in a book, with a cover and all the pages numbered!
WHO.... Who made the book and prove these people were guided by the Holy Spirit!

WHO.. Who closed the canon of scriptures telling all the world; "There can't be any more added or removed from the bible"!?

WHO.. said... "I am with you always, even to the end of the world"?!
Question did this person leave? Did he LIE!?

Dogknox
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 4:29:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 6:55:13 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
Much of your reasoning here is not supported well. "when we look at the historical narrative of acts and compare it to events going on at the time. From there we back track. I would say Acts was written no later than 62AD because it is most likely that Paul was still alive when the book was finished." Proof? Paul died in 67 AD btw. Also, why couldn't Luke have been written after Acts? What is your basis for this claim? Acts could have been written first as some argue.


From the sources I have used, they generally list Pauls death at 62. I could find more sources but one I have the bibliography for available to me right now is: Strobel, Lee. The Case For Christ: a Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence For Jesus. (Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1998.) 34. However even if we date it at 67, the logic still follows. Paul is the main character in Acts in the first half of the book. It seems very unlikely that Paul would have died and Luke said nothing about it when he wrote Acts. When we look at history we can't say we know anything for 100% mathematical certainty. We can only say what is most probable. And to me it seems most probable that Paul died after Acts was finished. I have never heard anyone argue that Acts was written before Luke. We can use Pauls journeys as a way to trace how much time had gone by. I would say Acts was written probably early AD 60's because of these reasons:
1. Chapter 28 ends with Paul under house arrest, but free to preach to all. This had to occur before the A.D. 64 great fire for which Nero blamed Christians.
2. There is no indication the Jewish War had begun (in A.D. 66).
3. The Apostle James is still alive, and he died, according to Josephus in A.D. 62.

There's a few more reasons, but there is some.

Say what? Fallible men writing a book? While it is possible that it is correct, the burden still is on you to prove it correct.

When we look at historical documents we look at where they are verifiable. Obviously we cannot verify certain miracles done. However, in the places that we can verify, in my opinion, they seem verified haha. As I hope I supported in the other questions. Asking are the gospels correct is just too big of a question for a thread like this. If you break it into smaller questions like your other ones I will give the best answer I can.
Ermm...Judas wrote the Gospel of Judas...did he not?


Have not done much research on the apocrypha. The one I have looked at the most is gospel of Thomas, because most bring that up. I highly doubt Judas wrote it because it is usually dated at AD 130-170. Also the ancient writer Irenaeus (130 - 202 AD) in his work called Refutation of All Heresies said that the gospel of Judas was a fictitious history. (Source available upon request.)

I would say generally it is later dating.

please elaborate if you wish :)


I don't really know what you want me to elaborate on haha. My apologies. I just think most of the apocrapha are not accepted due to later dating which in most cases makes them much less reliable. Of course I think there is truth in them. Just like I could write a book now that may contain some truths about Jesus. However, that doesn't mean it would be totally accurate.

Agreed. But, why would the Sandhista's and the Roman Empire be so afraid of Jesus (and Christianity) if his teachings were not accepted by at least a good number of people? And do not try to argue the Sandhista's and the Roman Empire didn't consider him a threat xD


Well actually the roman empire thought John the Baptist was much more of a threat than Jesus. John the Baptist was much more heavily involved with politics. Jesus just said give to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods. Jesus wasn't put to death from threatening the Roman Government. He was put to death for blasphemy. He pissed the pharisees off way more than the Roman Empire.

Well...if someone with a lot of power or force quite literally forced him to deny Jesus it wouldn't make as big of an impact. I basically see it as saying someone's faith can be rattled by the most unlikely source.

If you were Peter would you be like, "Yeah guys just put that in about me. I know it makes me look like a horrible follower of Christ, but yeah I'll take one for the team." haha.

I also believe Peter was scared that the little girl would well tell on him xD


If I understand what you are saying, you have to place the evidence in a vacuum (so to speak) to determine it's reliability before dismissal? Please correct me if I'm wrong haha


I don't really know what you are getting at here.

Yea...this is true. But, I'm just curious about the .5% ^.^


Mostly people who were copying the manuscripts messed up grammer, spelling, ect. I believe the people who originally wrote the bible were inspired. Not anyone copying it or translating.

Wow...good luck! You're gonna need it haha it's a very, very, very hard language to learn.


Haha I know I need it. Just started and I'm already dying haha
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 4:33:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:25:45 PM, Dogknox wrote:
stubs Please give me the HISTORY of where the Gospels came from!! They did not fall out of the sky, in a book, with a cover and all the pages numbered!

Never claimed they fell out of the sky. I gave reasons for my dating of the gospels earlier in this thread. Feel free to check them out.

WHO.... Who made the book and prove these people were guided by the Holy Spirit!


I don't believe there's such thing as proof when it comes to history. Just evidence. Moreover, you cant really "prove" anyone is guided by the holy spirit haha.

WHO.. Who closed the canon of scriptures telling all the world; "There can't be any more added or removed from the bible"!?


Canon in I believe it was 397. Could be wrong. I did a lot of research on the canon last year. I retained some of the information, but not as much as I would have liked haha.

Dogknox
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 4:34:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 4:12:04 PM, Dogknox wrote:
stubs YOU THERE??

Sorry bruh. I've been in the library for hours trying to learn Greek haha. I get to post as best I can but sometimes it takes a little bit.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 10:49:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 4:33:01 PM, stubs wrote:
At 8/28/2012 10:25:45 PM, Dogknox wrote:
stubs Please give me the HISTORY of where the Gospels came from!! They did not fall out of the sky, in a book, with a cover and all the pages numbered!

Never claimed they fell out of the sky. I gave reasons for my dating of the gospels earlier in this thread. Feel free to check them out.

WHO.... Who made the book and prove these people were guided by the Holy Spirit!


I don't believe there's such thing as proof when it comes to history. Just evidence. Moreover, you cant really "prove" anyone is guided by the holy spirit haha.

WHO.. Who closed the canon of scriptures telling all the world; "There can't be any more added or removed from the bible"!?


Canon in I believe it was 397. Could be wrong. I did a lot of research on the canon last year. I retained some of the information, but not as much as I would have liked haha.

Dogknox

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Your words.. I don't believe there's such thing as proof when it comes to history. Just evidence.
Historical DOCUMENTED PROOF.... It was the Holy Catholic Church that put all the INSPIRED Manuscripts into one book she called; "The Bible"! It was the Holy Catholic Church that weeded out all the faults, phony manuscripts from the truly inspired ones! There were hundreds of manuscripts kicking around no one knew what was truly inspired and what ones were not!

stubs GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT; She alone took on the task. THINK: Even if every manuscript had started with; "This is inspired by God" the phony ones would also have started the same way "This is inspired by God"!
It was the Holy Spirit that guided the Holy Catholic Church in the task of deciding the INSPIRED from the un-inspired!

THINK yet again: If the Holy Catholic Church was guided by God in the task of picking the truly inspired manuscripts, don't you think he would also not stick around and help her INTERPRET the same manuscripts!!???

stubs Your words.. Canon in I believe it was 397.
I reply: Yes the Canon was closed then but you failed to mention it was closed by the POPE!!!

The Holy Catholic Church gave the world her bible! You must accept her AUTHORITY in deciding the correct manuscripts >> THERE WAS NO OTHERS!<<
stubs You should toss your bible out your stinking window if you reject the Holy Catholic Church; "How can you know she got it right when she made her Bible"???! YOU DON'T! The Holy Catholic Church might have got it wrong, she might not have been guided by the Holy Spirit!! Ha-HA!!!
stubs YOU MUST trust she was guided by the HOLY SPIRIT In 397 A.D.!!!

You MUST trust Jesus started with his Church so he will never ever leave his CHURCH!
The Great Commission:
Matthew 28:20
and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Jesus is ALWAYS with his Church when he ascended and he was with her when she Closed the Canon of scriptures 400 years later!!!!!
This is INSPIRED SCRIPTURES!!
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Jesus is still with his holy Bride.. His Holy Catholic Church today!

stubs Study this, before you study any more New Testament because the Bible is a Catholic Book!!
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 11:31:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 10:49:41 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Dogknox

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.


This thread is about the historic reliability of the gospels. You can't say the gospels say they are led by the holy spirit so they are led by the holy spirit. I agree with your conclusion, but your evidence is poor.

Your words.. I don't believe there's such thing as proof when it comes to history. Just evidence.
Historical DOCUMENTED PROOF.... It was the Holy Catholic Church that put all the INSPIRED Manuscripts into one book she called; "The Bible"! It was the Holy Catholic Church that weeded out all the faults, phony manuscripts from the truly inspired ones! There were hundreds of manuscripts kicking around no one knew what was truly inspired and what ones were not!


I would say thats evidence, but no need for semantics so its all good.

stubs GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT; She alone took on the task. THINK: Even if every manuscript had started with; "This is inspired by God" the phony ones would also have started the same way "This is inspired by God"!
It was the Holy Spirit that guided the Holy Catholic Church in the task of deciding the INSPIRED from the un-inspired!

THINK yet again: If the Holy Catholic Church was guided by God in the task of picking the truly inspired manuscripts, don't you think he would also not stick around and help her INTERPRET the same manuscripts!!???


Are you arguing that the interpreters and those that copied it were inspired? Good luck defending that.

stubs Your words.. Canon in I believe it was 397.
I reply: Yes the Canon was closed then but you failed to mention it was closed by the POPE!!!

The Holy Catholic Church gave the world her bible! You must accept her AUTHORITY in deciding the correct manuscripts >> THERE WAS NO OTHERS!<<
stubs You should toss your bible out your stinking window if you reject the Holy Catholic Church; "How can you know she got it right when she made her Bible"???! YOU DON'T! The Holy Catholic Church might have got it wrong, she might not have been guided by the Holy Spirit!! Ha-HA!!!
stubs YOU MUST trust she was guided by the HOLY SPIRIT In 397 A.D.!!!


The usual Catholic rant found in every other thread in the religion section of this site.

You MUST trust Jesus started with his Church so he will never ever leave his CHURCH!
The Great Commission:
Matthew 28:20
and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."


Same as above

Jesus is ALWAYS with his Church when he ascended and he was with her when she Closed the Canon of scriptures 400 years later!!!!!
This is INSPIRED SCRIPTURES!!
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Jesus is still with his holy Bride.. His Holy Catholic Church today!

stubs Study this, before you study any more New Testament because the Bible is a Catholic Book!!

Same as above
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 12:23:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 10:05:51 AM, stubs wrote:
Whats up everybody.

If you have read my bio or talked to me, you know I'm a bible and theology major. I think I want to specialize in studies of the new testament. Last year was my freshman year and I wrote a 14 page research paper simply on the historical reliability of the gospels. So I know some about the topic, but I would never claim to be an expert or anything on the subject. I just want to know some questions skeptics have about either the reliability of the gospels, Jesus, the resurrection, and other things like that. I want to do this to test my knowledge, maybe provide some answers, and I'm hoping I myself learn some new things. I have no idea if anyone will even post in here, but I'll try to get to all of them. It may take a little bit if I have to go to the library to do some research so I can give the answers to the best of my ability.

Thanks

1. Its all written after Jesus supposed death by decades? Quite a feat to remember someone word for word with the t's crossed and the i's dotted decades after their death when never even supposedly ever meeting the character.
2. Its all written in Greek and much of it is corrupt Greek text
3. There is no contemporary record of Jesus or any of the supposed "witnesses"
4. Much of it shows to be stolen concepts from other religions, beliefs, cultures, oral traditions ect.. Not much originality in there, and details of Jesus are so bleak that you can find more character insight in a common childrens book..
5. Authors are unknown, and much of it seems very oddly pro-roman during a time of war with the Hebrews.
6. The bible was never a book, and today, especially the NT is nowhere near what it originally was. And we know now that it was edited to remove polytheism and Ahserah as Yahweh's consort (wife)..
7 the reliability of the Gospels on the crucifixion of Jesus isn't reliable. No Roman contemporary Record exists of this event, and nor is it stated in the bible that any such person was placed on a "cross".. And the Cross is a stolen symbol adopted by the Christians from the Egyptians and literally has the same exact meaning.. That includes that little olive branch crown on said characters head.

So if you have some educated insight.. My questions these:

* Do you have any contemporary records concerning the accuracy of the Gospels?
* Why was a GOD son incapable of writing and signing his own philosphies?
* Why were most of Jesus's teachings of love ect taught by philosophers that preexisted his supposed existence?
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 3:11:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster:

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

http://www.nobeliefs.com...

&

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed. As Nicholas Carter concludes in The Christ Myth: "No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity." (Source: http://www.truthbeknown.com...)

Next!
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 3:13:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 10:05:51 AM, stubs wrote:
Whats up everybody.

If you have read my bio or talked to me, you know I'm a bible and theology major. I think I want to specialize in studies of the new testament. Last year was my freshman year and I wrote a 14 page research paper simply on the historical reliability of the gospels.

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster:

"The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced, than any other book." (Dr. J.J. Griesbach, 1771)
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 7:50:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 12:23:25 AM, TheJackel wrote:
1. Its all written after Jesus supposed death by decades? Quite a feat to remember someone word for word with the t's crossed and the i's dotted decades after their death when never even supposedly ever meeting the character.

I gave reason for believing it was actually the names of those attached to them that wrote it.

2. Its all written in Greek and much of it is corrupt Greek text

The earliest 6000 greek manuscripts we have are within 99.5% constancy. Not sure what you mean by "corrupt Greek text." We have a good idea of what the original manuscripts said.

3. There is no contemporary record of Jesus or any of the supposed "witnesses"

I gave reasons for thinking the gospels were. However, Paul clearly was.

4. Much of it shows to be stolen concepts from other religions, beliefs, cultures, oral traditions ect.. Not much originality in there, and details of Jesus are so bleak that you can find more character insight in a common childrens book..

If there is another account of a resurrection involving a historical figure and not a greek God then I just haven't heard of it.

5. Authors are unknown, and much of it seems very oddly pro-roman during a time of war with the Hebrews.

I gave reasons that we do know the authors.

6. The bible was never a book, and today, especially the NT is nowhere near what it originally was. And we know now that it was edited to remove polytheism and Ahserah as Yahweh's consort (wife)..

Baseless assertion.

7 the reliability of the Gospels on the crucifixion of Jesus isn't reliable. No Roman contemporary Record exists of this event, and nor is it stated in the bible that any such person was placed on a "cross".. And the Cross is a stolen symbol adopted by the Christians from the Egyptians and literally has the same exact meaning.. That includes that little olive branch crown on said characters head.


Josephus recorded it. One of the most reliable historians of that time. Josephus was not a Christian, but he clearly records Jesus died on the cross.

So if you have some educated insight.. My questions these:

* Do you have any contemporary records concerning the accuracy of the Gospels?

Not sure what you mean.

* Why was a GOD son incapable of writing and signing his own philosphies?

He wasn't here to write his philosophies. He was here to die for the atonement of sins.

* Why were most of Jesus's teachings of love ect taught by philosophers that preexisted his supposed existence?

Many people taught love. Don't know many that were resurrected.